Most of what we know about Mark comes directly from the New Testament. He is usually identified with the Mark of Acts 12:12. (When Peter escaped from prison, he went to the home of Mark’s mother.)

Paul and Barnabas took him along on the first missionary journey, but for some reason Mark returned alone to Jerusalem. It is evident, from Paul’s refusal to let Mark accompany him on the second journey despite Barnabas’s insistence, that Mark had displeased Paul. Later, Paul asks Mark to visit him in prison so we may assume the trouble did not last long.

The oldest and the shortest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Mark emphasizes Jesus’ rejection by humanity while being God’s triumphant envoy. Probably written for Gentile converts in Rome—after the death of Peter and Paul sometime between A.D. 60 and 70—Mark’s Gospel is the gradual manifestation of a “scandal”: a crucified Messiah.

Evidently a friend of Mark (Peter called him “my son”), Peter is only one of the Gospel sources, others being the Church in Jerusalem (Jewish roots) and the Church at Antioch (largely Gentile).

Like one other Gospel writer, Luke, Mark was not one of the 12 apostles. We cannot be certain whether he knew Jesus personally. Some scholars feel that the evangelist is speaking of himself when describing the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane: “Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked” (Mark 14:51-52).

Others hold Mark to be the first bishop of Alexandria, Egypt. Venice, famous for the Piazza San Marco, claims Mark as its patron saint; the large basilica there is believed to contain his remains.A winged lion is Mark’s symbol. The lion derives from Mark’s description of John the Baptist as a “voice of one crying out in the desert” (Mark 1:3), which artists compared to a roaring lion. The wings come from the application of Ezekiel’s vision of four winged creatures (Ezekiel, chapter one) to the evangelists.

It
isassumedin this article that theindividualreferred to inActsasJohnMark (12:12, 25;15:37),John(xiii, 5, 13),Mark
(15:39), is identical with theMarkmentioned bySt. Paul(Colossians
4:10;2 Timothy 4:11;Philemon
24)
and bySt. Peter(1
Peter 5:13). Their identity is not questioned by any ancient writer of note, while
it is strongly suggested, on the one hand by the fact thatMarkof the PaulineEpistleswas the cousin (ho anepsios)
ofBarnabas(Colossians
4:10), to whomMarkofActsseems to have been bound by some special tie (Acts 15:37, 39); on the other by the probability
that theMark, whomSt. Petercalls his son (1 Peter 5:13), is no other than the son ofMary, theApostle'sold friend inJerusalem(Acts
21:12). To theJewishnameJohnwas added theRomanpronomenMarcus, and by the latter he was commonly known to the readers ofActs(15:37,ton kaloumenon Markon) and of theEpistles.Mark'smother was a prominent member of
the infantChurchatJerusalem; it was to her house thatPeterturned on his release fromprison; the house was
approached by aporch(pulon), there was aslavegirl (paidiske), probably the portress, to open the door, and
the house was a meeting-place for the brethren, "many" of whom wereprayingthere the nightSt. Peterarrived fromprison(Acts
12:12-13).

When,
on the occasion of the famine of A.D. 45-46,BarnabasandSaulhad completed their ministration inJerusalem, they tookMarkwith them on their return toAntioch(Acts
12:25). Not long after, when they started onSt.
Paul'sfirstApostolicjourney, they hadMarkwith them as some sort of assistant
(hupereten,Acts 13:5); but the vagueness and variety of
meaning of theGreekterm makes it uncertain in what precise capacity heacted. Neither selected by theHoly Spirit, nor delegated by theChurch
of Antioch, as wereBarnabasandSaul(Acts
13:2-4), he was probably taken by theApostlesas one who could be of general help. The context ofActs
13:5, suggests that he helped even in preaching theWord. WhenPaulandBarnabasresolved to push on fromPergainto centralAsia
Minor,Mark, departed from them, if indeed
he had not already done so atPaphos, and returned toJerusalem(Acts
13:13). What his reasons were for turning back, we cannot say withcertainty;Acts
15:38, seems to suggest that hefearedthe toil. At any rate, the incident was not forgotten bySt.
Paul, who refused on account of it to takeMarkwith him on the secondApostolicjourney. This refusal led to the
separation ofPaulandBarnabas, and the latter, takingMarkwith him, sailed toCyprus(Acts 15:37-40). At this point (A.D. 49-50) we
lose sight ofMarkinActs, and we meet him no more in
theNew
Testament, till he appears some ten years afterwards as the fellow-worker ofSt.
Paul, and in the company ofSt. Peter, atRome.

St.
Paul, writing to theColossiansduring his firstRomanimprisonment(A.D. 59-61), says: "Aristarchus, my fellowprisoner, saluteth you, andMark, the cousin ofBarnabas, touching whom
you have receivedcommandments; if he come unto you, receive him" (Colossians 4:10). At thetimethis was written,Markwas evidently inRome, but had someintentionof visitingAsia
Minor. About the same timeSt. Paulsends greetings toPhilemonfromMark, whom he names among his
fellow-workers (sunergoi,Philem., 24). TheEvangelist'sintentionof visitingAsia
Minorwas probably carried out, forSt.
Paul, writing shortly before his death toTimothyatEphesus, bids him pick upMarkand bring him with him toRome, adding "for he is profitable
to me for theministry" (2 Timothy 4:11). IfMarkcame toRomeat this time, he was probably there whenSt.
Paulwasmartyred. Turning to1
Peter 5:13, we read: "TheChurchthat is inBabylon,electedtogether with you, saluteth you, and (so doth)Markmy son" (Markos, ohuiosaou). This letter was
addressed to variousChurchesofAsia Minor(1
Peter 1:1), and we may conclude thatMarkwas known to them. Hence, though he had refused to penetrate intoAsia
MinorwithPaulandBarnabas,St. Paulmakes it probable, andSt. Petercertain, that he went
afterwards, and the fact thatSt. PetersendsMark'sgreeting to a number ofChurchesimplies that he must
have been widely known there. In callingMarkhis "son",Petermay possibly imply that he hadbaptizedhim, though in that caseteknonmight be expected rather thanhuios(cf.1 Corinthians 4:17;1
Timothy 1:2, 18;2 Timothy 1:2;2:1;Titus
1:4;Philemon 10). The term need not be taken to
imply more than affectionate regard for a youngerman, who had long ago sat at Peter's feet inJerusalem, and whose mother had
been theApostle'sfriend (Acts
12:12). As to theBabylonfrom whichPeterwriters, and in whichMarkis present with him, there can be no reasonabledoubtthat it isRome. The view ofSt.
Jerome: "St. Peteralso mentions thisMarkin his FirstEpistle, while referring figuratively toRomeunder the title of Babylon" (Illustrious Men8), is supported by all
the early Father who refer to the subject. It may be said to have been
questioned for the first time byErasmus, whom a number ofProtestantwriters then followed, that they might the more readily deny theRomanconnection ofSt. Peter. Thus, we findMarkinRomewithSt. Peterat a time when he was widely known to theChurchesofAsia
Minor. If we suppose him, as we may, to have gone toAsia
Minorafter thedateof theEpistle to the Colossians, remained
there for sometime, and returned toRomebefore IPeterwas written, thePetrineand Pauline references to theEvangelistare quite intelligible and consistent.

When
we turn totradition,Papias(Eusebius,Church HistoryIII.39) asserts not later than
A.D. 130, on the authority of an "elder", thatMarkhad been the interpreter (hermeneutes)
ofPeter, and wrote down accurately, though not in order, the teaching ofPeter(see below,GOSPEL
OF SAINT MARK). A widespread, if somewhat late,traditionrepresentsSt. Markas the founder of theChurch
of Alexandria. Though strangely enoughClementandOrigenmake no reference to thesaint'sconnection with their city, it is attested byEusebius(op. cit., II, xvi, xxiv), bySt. Jerome("De Vir. Illust.", viii), by theApostolic Constitutions(VII, xlvi), byEpiphanius("Hær;.", li, 6) and by many laterauthorities. The "Martyrologium Romanum" (25 April) records:
"AtAlexandriathe anniversary ofBlessedMarktheEvangelist. . . atAlexandriaof St. Anianus,Bishop, thediscipleofBlessedMarkand hissuccessorin theepiscopate, who fell asleep in theLord." Thedateat whichMarkcame toAlexandriais uncertain. TheChronicle of Eusebiusassigns it to the first years ofClaudius(A.D. 41-4), and later on states
thatSt. Mark'sfirstsuccessor, Anianus, succeeded to theSee
of Alexandriain the eighth year ofNero(61-2). This would makeMarkBishopofAlexandriafor a period of about twenty years. This is not impossible, if we might
suppose in accordance with some early evidence thatSt. Petercame toRomein A.D. 42,Markperhaps accompanying him. ButActsraise considerable difficulties. On theassumptionthat the founder of theChurch
of Alexandriawas identical with the
companion ofPaulandBarnabas, we find him atJerusalemandAntiochabout A.D. 46 (Acts
12:25), inSalamisabout 47 (Acts
13:5), atAntiochagain about 49 or 50 (Acts
15:37-9), and when he quittedAntioch, on the
separation ofPaulandBarnabas, it was not toAlexandriabut toCyprusthat he turned (Acts
15:39). There is nothing indeed toproveabsolutely that all this is inconsistent with his beingBishopofAlexandriaat the time, but seeing that thechronologyof theApostolicage is admittedly uncertain, and
that we have no earlier authority thanEusebiusfor thedateof the foundation of theAlexandrianChurch, we may perhaps conclude with more probability that it was
founded somewhat later. There is abundance oftimebetween A.D. 50 and 60, a period
during which theNew Testamentissilentin regard toSt. Mark, for his activity inEgypt.

In
the preface to hisGospelinmanuscriptsof theVulgate,Markis represented as having been aJewishpriest: "Mark theEvangelist, who exercised thepriestlyoffice inIsrael, aLeviteby race". Earlyauthorities, however,
aresilentupon the point, and it is perhaps
only an inference from his relation toBarnabastheLevite(Acts
4:36).Papias(inEusebius,Church HistoryIII.39) says, on the authority
of "the elder", thatMarkneither heard theLordnor followed Him (oute gar ekouse tou kurion oute parekoluthesen
auto), and the same statement is made in the Dialogue ofAdamantius(fourth century, Leipzig, 1901, p.
8), byEusebius("Demonst. Evang.", III,
v), bySt. Jerome("InMatth."), bySt.
Augustine("De Consens. Evang."),
and is suggested by theMuratorian Fragment. Latertradition, however, makesMarkone of the seventy-twodisciples, andSt.
Epiphanius("Hær", li, 6) says he
was one of those who withdrew fromChrist(John
6:67). The latertraditioncan have no weight
against the earlier evidence, but the statement thatMarkneither heard theLordnor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor force us tobelievethat he never sawChrist. Many indeed are of opinion that the young man who fled naked
fromGethsemane(Mark
14:51) wasMarkhimself. Early in the third centuryHippolytus("Philosophumena", VII, xxx) refers toMarkasho kolobodaktulos, i.e. "stump-fingered" or "mutilated
in the finger(s)", and laterauthoritiesallude to the same defect. Various explanations of the epithet have been
suggested: thatMark, after he embracedChristianity, cut off his thumb to
unfit himself for theJewishpriesthood; that his fingers werenaturallystumpy; that some defect in his
toes is alluded to; that the epithet is to be regarded as metaphorical, and
means "deserted" (cf.Acts 13:13).

ThedateofMark'sdeath is uncertain.St.
Jerome("De Vir. Illustr.",
viii) assigns it to the eighth year ofNero(62-63) (Mortuus est octavo
Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriæ), but this is probably only an inference
from the statement ofEusebius(Church HistoryII.24), that in that year
Anianus succeededSt. Markin theSee of Alexandria. Certainly, ifSt. Markwas alive when IITimothywas written (2 Timothy 4:11), he cannot have died in 61-62. Nor
doesEusebiussay he did; the historian may merely mean thatSt. Markthen resigned hissee, and leftAlexandriato joinPeterandPaulatRome. As to the manner of
his death, the "Acts" ofMarkgive thesaintthegloryofmartyrdom, and say that he died while being
dragged through the streets ofAlexandria; so too thePaschalChronicle. But we have no evidence
earlier than the fourth century that thesaintwasmartyred. This earliersilence, however, is not at all decisive against thetruthof the latertraditions. For thesaint'salleged connection withAquileia, see "Acta
SS.", XI, pp. 346-7, and for the removal of his body fromAlexandriatoVeniceand his cultus there, ibid., pp. 352-8. InChristianliteratureandartSt. Markissymbolicallyrepresented by a lion. TheLatinandGreekChurchescelebrate hisfeaston 25 April, but theGreek Churchkeeps also thefeastofJohnMarkon 27 September.

Contents, selection and arrangement of
matter

The
SecondGospel, like the other twoSynoptics, deals chiefly with theGalileanministryofChrist, and the events of the last week
atJerusalem. In a brief
introduction, theministryof thePrecursorand the immediate preparation ofChristfor His official work by HisBaptismandtemptationare touched upon (i, 1-13); then
follows the body of theGospel,
dealing with the public ministry,Passion,
Death, andResurrectionofJesus(i, 14-xvi, 8); and lastly the work in its present form gives a summary
account of some appearances of therisenLord,
and ends with a reference to theAscensionand theuniversalpreaching of theGospel(xvi, 9-20). The body of theGospelfallsnaturallyinto three divisions: theministryinGalileeand adjoining districts:Phoenicia,Decapolis, and the country north
towardsCæareaPhilippi(i, 14-ix, 49); theministryinJudeaand (kai
peran,
with B,Aleph, C*, L,Psi, in x, 1) Peræa, and the journey
toJerusalem(x, 1-xi, 10); the events of the last
week atJerusalem(xi, 11-xvi, 8).

Beginning
with the publicministry(cf.Acts 1:22;10:37),St. Markpasses insilenceover the preliminary events recorded
by the otherSynoptists: the conception and birth of the
Baptist, thegenealogy,
conception, and birth ofJesus, the coming of theMagi, etc. He is much more
concerned withChrist'sactsthan with His
discourses, only two of these being given at any considerable length (iv, 3-32;
xiii, 5-37). Themiraclesare narrated most graphically and thrown into great prominence, almost a
fourth of the entireGospel(in theVulg., 164 verses out of 677) being
devoted to them, and there seems to be a desire to impress the readers from the
outset withChrist'salmightypower and dominion over allnature.
The very firstchapterrecords threemiracles: the casting out of anuncleanspirit, the cure ofPeter'smother-in-law, and the healing of aleper, besides alluding
summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteenmiraclesrecorded altogether in theGospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52;
xi, 12-14) occur in the first eightchapters.
Only two of thesemiracles(vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar toMark, but, in regard to nearly all,
there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the otherSynoptics. Of theparablesproperMarkhas
only four: the sower (iv, 3-9), the seed growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the
mustard seed (iv, 30-32), and thewickedhusbandman (xii, 1-9); the second of
these is wanting in the otherGospels.
Special attention is paid throughout to thehumanfeelings and emotions ofChrist, and to the effect
produced by Hismiraclesupon the crowd. The weaknesses of theApostlesare far more apparent than in the
parallel narratives ofMatt. andLuke, this being, probably due to the
graphic and candid discourses ofPeter,
upon whichtraditionrepresentsMarkas
relying.

The
repeated notes oftimeand place (e.g., i, 14, 19, 20, 21,
29, 32, 35) seem to show that theEvangelistmeant to arrange inchronologicalorder at least a number of the events
which he records. Occasionally the note oftimeis wanting (e.g. i, 40; iii, 1; iv, 1;
x, 1, 2, 13) or vague (e.g. ii, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such cases he may of
course depart from the order of events. But the very fact that in some
instances he speaks thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the morenecessaryto take his definite notes oftimeand sequence in other cases as
indicatingchronologicalorder. We are here confronted,
however, with the testimony ofPapias,
who quotes an elder (presbyter), with whom he apparently agrees, as saying thatMarkdid
not write in order: "And the elder said this also:Mark, having become interpreter ofPeter, wrote down accurately
everything that heremembered,
without, however, recording in order what was either said or done byChrist. For neither did he
hear theLord, nor did he follow
Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended)Peter,
who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design
of giving a connected account of theLord'soracles[v. l. "words"]. So thenMarkmade
no mistake [Schmiedel, "committed no fault"], while he thus wrote
down some things (eniaas herememberedthem; for he made it his one care not
to omit anything that he had heard, or set down anyfalsestatement therein" (Eusebius,Church HistoryIII.39). Some indeed have
understood this famous passage to mean merely thatMarkdid
not write aliterarywork, but simply a string of notes
connected in the simplest fashion (cf. Swete, "The Gospel according to
Mark", pp. lx-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced that whatPapiasand the elder deny to ourGospelischronologicalorder, since for no other order would
it have beennecessarythatMarkshould have heard or followedChrist. But the passage need not be
understood to mean more than thatMarkoccasionally departs fromchronologicalorder, a thing we are quite prepared
to admit. WhatPapiasand the elder considered to be thetrueorder we cannot say; they can hardly have fancied it to be represented
in the FirstGospel, which so
evidently groups (e.g.viii-ix),
nor, it would seem, in the Third, sinceLuke,
likeMark, had not been adiscipleofChrist.
It may well be that, belonging as they did toAsia Minor, they had theGospel of St. Johnand itschronologyinmind. At any rate,
theirjudgmentupon the SecondGospel, even if bejust, does not prevent us from holding
thatMark, to some extent,
arranges the events ofChrist'slike inchronologicalorder.

Authorship

All
earlytraditionconnects the SecondGospelwith two names, those ofSt. MarkandSt.
Peter,Markbeing held to have written whatPeterhad preached. We havejustseen
that this was the view ofPapiasand the elder to whom he refers.Papiaswrote not later than about A.D. 130,
so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first
century, and shows the SecondGospelknowninAsia Minorand attributed toSt. Markat that earlytime. SoIrenæussays: "Mark, thediscipleand interpreter ofPeter, himself also handed down to us
in writing what was preached byPeter"
(Against HeresiesIII.1andIII.10.6).St.
Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elderpresbyters", tells us that, whenPeterhad publicly preached inRome, many of those who
heard him exhortedMark, as one
who had long followedPeterandrememberedwhat he had said, to write it down,
and thatMark"composed theGospeland gave it to those who had asked for
it" (Eusebius,Church HistoryVI.14).Origensays (ibid., VI, xxv) thatMarkwrote asPeterdirected him (osPetroshuphegesato auto), andEusebiushimself reports thetraditionthatPeterapproved or authorizedMark'swork (Church HistoryII.15). To these earlyEasternwitnessesmay be added, from theWest, the author of theMuratorian
Fragment, which in its first line almostcertainlyrefers toMark'spresence at Peter's discourses and his
composition of theGospelaccordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et
ita posuit);Tertullian, who states: "TheGospelwhichMarkpublished
(ediditisaffirmedto bePeter's, whose interpreterMarkwas" ("Contra Marc.",
IV, v);St. Jerome, who in one place says thatMarkwrote
a shortGospelat the request of the brethren atRome, and thatPeterauthorized it to be read in theChurches("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and
in another thatMark'sGospelwas composed,Peternarrating andMarkwriting
(Petro
narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of
these ancientauthoritiesMarkis
regarded as the writer of theGospel, which is looked upon at the same time as
havingApostolicauthority, becausesubstantiallyat least it had come fromSt. Peter. In the light of thistraditionalconnexion of heGospelwithSt.
Peter, there can be nodoubtthat it is to itSt. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the
second century, refers (Dialogue with Trypho106), when he says thatChristgave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons ofZebedee(a fact mentioned in theNew
Testamentonly inMark
3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" ofPeter(en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he hadjustnamedPeter). ThoughSt.
Justindoes not nameMarkas
the writer of the memoirs, the fact that hisdiscipleTatianused our presentMark,
including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the
"Diatessaron", makes it practicallycertainthatSt. Justinknewour present SecondGospel,
and like the otherFathersconnected it withSt. Peter.

If,
then, a consistent and widespread earlytraditionis to count for anything,St. Markwrote a work based uponSt. Peter'spreaching. It is absurd to seek to
destroy the force of thistraditionby suggesting that all the subsequentauthoritiesrelied uponPapias, who may have been deceived.
Apart from the utter improbability thatPapias,
who had spoken with manydisciplesof theApostles, could have been deceived on
such a question, the fact thatIrenæusseems to place the composition ofMark'swork afterPeter'sdeath, whileOrigenand other represent theApostleas approving of it (see below, V),
shows that all do not draw from the same source. Moreover,Clement
of Alexandriamentions as his source,
not any single authority, but "the elders from the beginning" (ton anekathen presbuteron--Eusebius,Church HistoryVI.14). The only question,
then, that can be raised with any shadow ofreason,
is whetherSt. Mark'swork was identical with our present
SecondGospel, and on this there
is no room fordoubt.Early Christian literatureknowsno trace of anUrmarkusdifferent from our presentGospel,
and it is impossible that a work giving thePrinceof theApostles'account ofChrist'swords anddeedscould have disappeared utterly,
without leaving any trace behind. Nor can it be said that the originalMarkhas
been worked up into our present SecondGospel,
for then,St. Marknot being the actual writer of the
present work and itssubstancebeing due toSt. Peter, there would have been no
reason to attribute it toMark,
and it would undoubtedly have beenknownin theChurch, not by the title it
bears, but as the "Gospel according toPeter".

Internal
evidence stronglyconfirmsthe view that our present SecondGospelis the work referred to byPapias. That work, as has been seen,
was based onPeter'sdiscourses. Now we learn from Acts (1:21-22;10:37-41) thatPeter'spreaching dealt chiefly with the
public life, Death,Resurrection, andAscensionofChrist. So our presentMark, confining itself to the same
limits, omitting all reference toChrist'sbirth and private life, such as is found in the openingchaptersofMatthewandLuke,
and commencing with the preaching of the Baptist, ends withChrist's
ResurrectionandAscension. Again (1) the graphic
and vivid touches peculiar to our present SecondGospel, its minute notes in regard to
(2)persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5)
numbers, point to an eyewitness likePeteras the source of the writer's
information.

Thus
we are told (1) howJesustookPeter'smother-in-law by the hand and raised
her up (i, 31), how withangerHe looked round about on Hiscritics(iii, 5), how He took little children
into His arms andblessedthem and laid His hands upon them (ix,
35; x, 16), how those who carried the paralytic uncovered the roof (ii, 3, 4),
howChristcommanded that the multitude should
sit down upon the green grass, and how they sat down in companies, in hundred
and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) howJamesandJohnleft their father in the boat with the
hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house ofSimonandAndrew,
withJamesandJohn(i, 29), how the blind man atJerichowas the son of Timeus (x, 46), howSimonofCyrenewas the father ofAlexanderandRufus(xv, 21); (3) how there was no room
even about the door of the house whereJesuswas (ii, 2), howJesussat in the sea and all the multitude was by the sea on the land (iv, 1),
howJesuswas in the stern of the boat asleep on the pillow (iv, 38); (4) how on
the evening of theSabbath, when the sun had set, the sick
were brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, long before day,Christrose up (i, 35), how He was crucified
at the third hour (xv, 25), how thewomencame to thetombvery early, when the sun hadrisen(xvi, 2); (5) how the paralytic was
carried by four (ii, 3), how the swine were about two thousand in number (v.
13), howChristbegan to send forth theApostles, two and two (vi, 7). This
mass of information which is wanting in the otherSynoptics, and of which the above
instances are only a sample,provedbeyonddoubtthat the writer of the SecondGospelmust have drawn from some independent
source, and that this source must have been an eyewitness. And when we reflect
that incidents connected withPeter,
such as the cure of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are told with
special details in thisGospel;
that the accounts of the raising tolifeof the daughter of Jaïrus, of theTransfiguration, and of theAgony
in the Garden, three occasions on which onlyPeterandJamesandJohnwere present, show specialsignsof first-handknowledge(cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected in the work of
adiscipleofPeter(Matthew andLukemay
also have relied upon thePetrinetraditionfor their accounts of these events,
butnaturallyPeter'sdisciplewould be more intimately acquainted
with thetradition); finally,
when werememberthat, though the SecondGospelrecords with special fullnessPeter'sthree denials, it alone among theGospelsomit all reference to the promise or
bestowal upon him of theprimacy(cf.Matthew 16:18-19;Luke 22:32;John 21:15-17), we are led to conclude that the
eyewitness to whomSt. Markwasindebtedfor his special information wasSt. Peterhimself, and that our present SecondGospel, likeMark'swork referred to byPapias, is based uponPeter'sdiscourse. This internal evidence, if
it does not actuallyprovethetraditionalview regarding thePetrineorigin of the SecondGospel, is altogether consistent with
it and tends strongly toconfirmit.

Original language, vocabulary, and style

It
has always been the common opinion that the SecondGospelwas written inGreek, and there is no solidreasontodoubtthe correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.;
VI, 187 sqq.) andMartial(Epig.,
XIV, 58) thatGreekwas very widely spoken atRomein the first century. Various influences were at work to spread the
language in the capital of theEmpire.
"Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at
both ends of thesocialscale. On the one hand amongslavesand the trading classes there were
swarms ofGreekand Greek-speakingOrientals. On the other hand in the
higher ranks it was the fashion to speakGreek;
children were taught it byGreeknurses; and in afterlifethe
use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation" (Sanday andHeadlam, "Romans", p. lii).
Weknow, too, that it was inGreekSt.
Paulwrote to theRomans, and fromRomeSt. Clementwrote to theChurchofCorinthin the same language. It istruethat some cursiveGreekmanuscriptsof the tenth century or later speak of the SecondGospelas written inLatin(egrathe Romaisti enRome, but scant and late
evidence like this, which is probably only adeductionfrom the fact that theGospelwas written atRome, can be allowed on
weight. Equally improbable seems the view of Blass (Philol. of theGosp., 196 sqq.) that theGospelwas originally written in Aramaic. The
arguments advanced by Blass (cf. alsoAllenin "Expositor", 6th series,
I, 436 sqq.) merely show at most thatMarkmay have thought in Aramaic; andnaturallyhis simple, colloquialGreekdiscloses much of the native Aramaic
tinge. Blass indeed urges that the various readings in themanuscriptsofMark, and the
variations inPatristicquotations from theGospel, arerelicsof different translations of an Aramaic original, but the instances he
adduces in support of this are quite inconclusive. An Aramaic original is
absolutely incompatible with the testimony ofPapias,
who evidently contrasts the work ofPeter'sinterpreter with the Aramaic work ofMatthew. It is incompatible, too, with
the testimony of all the otherFathers,
who represent theGospelas written byPeter'sinterpreter for theChristiansofRome.

The
vocabulary of the SecondGospelembraces 1330 distinct words, of which
60 are proper names. Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found
elsewhere in theNew Testament; this, however, is a small number
in comparison with more than 250 peculiar words found in theGospelofSt.
Luke. OfSt. Mark'swords, 150 are shared only by the
other twoSynoptists; 15 are shared only bySt. John(Gospel); and 12 others by one or
other of theSynoptistsandSt. John. Though the
words found but once in theNew Testament(apax
legomena)
are not relatively numerous in the SecondGospel,
they are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in laterGreeksuch as (eiten, paidiothen, withcolloquialismslike (kenturion, xestes, spekoulator), and withtransliterationssuch askorban, taleitha koum, ephphatha,
rabbounei(cf. Swete, op. cit., p.
xlvii). Of the words peculiar toSt.
Markabout one-fourth arenon-classical, while among those
peculiar toSt. Matthewor toSt. Lukethe proportion ofnon-classicalwords is only about one-seventh (cf.Hawkins, "Hor. Synopt.",
171). On the whole, the vocabulary of the SecondGospelpoints to the writer as a foreigner
who was well acquainted with colloquialGreek,
but a comparative stranger to theliteraryuse of the language.

St.
Mark'sstyle is clear, direct,
terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh. He makes very frequent use
of participles, is fond of thehistoricalpresent, of direct narration, of
double negatives, of the copious use of adverbs todefineand emphasize his expressions. He
varies his tenses very freely, sometimes to bring out different shades of
meaning (vii, 35; xv, 44), sometimes apparently to givelifeto
a dialogue (ix, 34; xi, 27). The style is often most compressed, a great deal
being conveyed in very few words (i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at other times
adverbs and synonyms and even repetitions are used to heighten the impression
and lend colour to the picture.Clausesare generally strung together in the
simplest way bykai; deis not used half as frequently as inMattheworLuke;
whileounoccurs only five times in the entireGospel.Latinismsare met with more frequently than in
the otherGospels, but this does
notprovethatMarkwrote inLatinor even understood the language. Itprovesmerely that he was familiar with the
commonGreekof the Roman Empire, which freelyadoptedLatinwords and, to some extent,Latinphraseology (cf. Blass, "Philol.
of theGosp.", 211 sq.),
Indeed such familiarity with what we may callRomanGreekstronglyconfirmsthetraditionalview thatMarkwas an "interpreter" who
spent some time atRome.

State of text and integrity

The
text of the SecondGospel, as
indeed of all theGospels, is
excellently attested. It is contained in all the primary unicalmanuscripts, C, however, not having
the text complete, in all the more important laterunicals, in the great mass of
cursives; in all the ancient versions:Latin(both Vet. It., in its bestmanuscripts, andVulg.),Syriac(Pesh.,Curet.,Sin.,Harcl.,Palest.),Coptic(Memph. andTheb.),Armenian,Gothic, andEthiopic; and it is largely
attested byPatristicquotations. Some textual problems,
however, still remain, e.g. whetherGerasenonorGergesenonis to be read in v, 1,eporeiorepoieiin vi, 20, and whether the difficultautou, attested by B,Aleph, A, L, orautesis to be read in vi, 20. But the great textual problem of theGospelconcerns thegenuinenessof the last twelve verses. Three
conclusions of theGospelare known: the long conclusion, as in
ourBibles, containing verses
9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediateformwhich
(with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately madeknownall that had been commanded to
those aboutPeter. And after
this,JesusHimself appeared to them, and through them sent forth fromEasttoWesttheholyand
incorruptible proclamation of theeternalsalvation." Now this thirdformmay
be dismissed at once. Four unicalmanuscripts, dating from the seventh to the
ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes
reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete,
op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursiveManuscript274, in the margin of the HarcleanSyriacand of twomanuscriptsof theMemphiticversion; and in a fewmanuscriptsof theEthiopicit stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one
authority, the OldLatink, gives it alone (in a very corrupt
rendering), without any reference to the longerform. Such evidence, especially when
compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact,
no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles toacceptance.

We
may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion
and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the
originalGospel, or making the
original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short endingEusebius("Quaest. ad Marin.") isappealedto as saying that anapologistmight get rid of any
difficulty arising from a comparison ofMatthew 28:1withMark 16:9, in regard to the hour ofChrist's
Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage inMarkbeginning with verse 9 is not
contained in all themanuscriptsof theGospel. The
historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all themanuscriptsofMark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . .
ta goun akribe, theGospelends with xvi, 8. It istrue,Eusebiusgives a second reply which theapologistmight make, and which supposes thegenuinenessof the disputed passage, and he says
that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside
anything whatever that was found in any way in theGospelwriting". But the whole passage
shows clearly enough thatEusebiuswas inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held,
too, that he did not apply hiscanonsto the disputed verses, thereby
showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text
(see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339).St.
Jeromealso says in one place
("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly allGreekmanuscripts(omnibus
Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it
elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as weknow, he incorporated it in
theVulgate. It is quite clear that the whole
passage, whereJeromemakes the
statement about the disputed verses being absent fromGreekmanuscripts, is borrowed almost
verbatim fromEusebius, and it may bedoubtedwhether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement
ofEusebius. It seems most likely
also thatVictorofAntioch,
the firstcommentatorof the SecondGospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the
conclusion. If we add to this that theGospelends with xvi, 8, in the two oldestGreekmanuscripts, B andAleph, in theSin.Syriacand in a fewEthiopicmanuscripts, and that the cursiveManuscript22 and someArmenianmanuscriptsindicatedoubtas to whether thetrueending is at verse 8 or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evidence
that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion. The external evidence in
favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The passage
stands in all the greatunicalsexcept B andAleph--in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M,
(N), S, U, V, X,Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma),Omega, Beth--in all the cursives, in all theLatinmanuscripts(O.L. andVulg.) except k,
in all theSyriacversions except
theSinaitic(in the Pesh.,Curet.,Harcl.,Palest.), in theCoptic,Gothic, and mostmanuscriptsof theArmenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the
fourth century, byAphraates, theSyriacTable ofCanons,MacariusMagnes,Didymus, theSyriacActs
of the Apostles,Leontius,
Pseudo-Ephraem,Cyril of Jerusalem,Epiphanius,Ambrose,Augustine, andChrysostom; in the third century,
byHippolytus, Vincentius, the
"Acts of Pilate", the "Apostolic Constitutions", and
probably byCelsus; in the
second, byIrenæusmost explicitly as the end ofMark'sGospel("In fine autem evangelii ait
Marcus et quidem dominusJesus",
etc.--Mark xvi, 19), byTatianin the "Diatessaron", and most probably byJustin("Apol. I", 45) andHermas(Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the
fourth centurycertainly, and
probably in the third, the passage was used in theLiturgyof theGreek
Church, sufficient evidence that nodoubtwhatever was entertained as to itsgenuineness.
Thus, if theauthenticityof the passage were to bejudgedby external evidence alone, there
could hardly be anydoubtabout it.

Much
has been made of thesilenceof some third and fourth century
Father, theirsilencebeing interpreted to mean that they
either did notknowthe passage or rejected it. ThusTertullian, SS.Cyprian,Athanasius,Basil
the Great,Gregory of Nazianzus, andCyril
of Alexandriaareappealedto. In the case ofTertullianandCyprianthere is room for somedoubt, as they mightnaturallyenough to be expected to have quoted
or alluded toMark
16:16, if they received it; but the passage can hardly have been unknown toAthanasius(298-373), since it was received byDidymus(309-394), his contemporary inAlexandria(P.G., XXXIX, 687), nor toBasil, seeing it was received by his
younger brotherGregory of Nyssa(P.G., XLVI, 652), nor toGregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to
his younger brotherCæsarius(P.G., XXXVIII, 1178); and as toCyril
of Alexandria, he actually quotes it fromNestorius(P.G., LXXVI, 85). The only serious
difficulties arecreatedby itsomissionin B andAlephand by the statements ofEusebiusandJerome. But
Tischendorfprovedto demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famousmanuscriptsare not here two independentwitnesses,
because thescribeof B copies the leaf inAlephon which our passage stands. Moreover, in bothmanuscripts, thescribe, though concluding with verse
8, betraysknowledgethat something more followed either in his archetype or in othermanuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom,
he leaves more than acolumnvacantafter verse 8, and inAlephverse 8 is followed by an elaborate
arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the wholemanuscript, showing that thescribewas aware of theexistenceof some conclusion which he meant
deliberately to exclude (cf.Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99;
Salmon, "Introd.", 144-48). Thus bothmanuscriptsbearwitnessto theexistenceof a conclusion following after verse
8, which they omit. Whether B andAlephare two of the fiftymanuscriptswhichConstantinecommissionedEusebiusto have copies for his new capital we cannot be sure; but at all events
they were written at a time when the authority ofEusebiuswas paramount inBiblical
criticism, and probably their authority is but the authority ofEusebius. The real difficulty,
therefore, against the passage, from external evidence, is reduced to whatEusebiusandSt. Jeromesay about itsomissionin so manyGreekmanuscripts, and these, asEusebiussays, the accurate ones. But whatever be the explanation of thisomission, it must be remembered that,
as we have seen above, the disputed verses were widely known and received long
before the time ofEusebius.DeanBurgon, while contending for thegenuinenessof the verses, suggested that theomissionmight have come about as follows. One
of the ancientchurchlessons ended withMark
16:8, andBurgonsuggested that thetelos, which would stand at the end of
such lesson, may have misled somescribewho had before him a copy of theFour
Gospelsin whichMarkstood
last, and from which the last leaf, containing the disputed verses, was
missing. Given one such defective copy, and supposing it fell into the hands ofignorantscribes, theerrormight easily be spread. Others have suggested that theomissionis probably to be traced toAlexandria. ThatChurchended theLenten
fastand commenced the
celebration ofEasterat midnight, contrary to thecustomof mostChurches, which waited for cock-crow
(cf.Dionysius
of Alexandriain P.G., X, 1272 sq.).
NowMark 16:9: "But herisingearly", etc., might easily be
taken to favour the practice of the otherChurches,
and it is suggested that theAlexandriansmay have omitted verse 9 and what
follows from theirlectionaries,
and from these theomissionmight pass on intomanuscriptsof theGospel. Whether there be any force in
these suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in which it was possible that
the passage, though genuine, should have been absent from a number ofmanuscriptsin the time ofEusebius; while, on the other and, if the
verses were not written bySt. Mark, it is extremely hard to
understand how they could have been so widely received in the second century as
to be accepted byTatianandIrenæus, and probably byJustinandHermas, and find a
place in the OldLatinandSyriacVersions.

When
we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more thecharacter, of the peculiarities
iscertainlystriking. The
following words or phrases occur nowhere else in theGospel:prote sabbaton(v. 9), not found again in theNew Testament, instead ofte[s] mia[s] [ton]sabbaton(v. 2),ekeinosused absolutely (10, 11, 20),poreuomai(10, 12, 15),theaomai(11, 14),apisteo(11, 16),meta tautaandeteros(12),parakoloutheoanden to onomati(17),ho kurios(19, 20),pantachou, sunergeo,
bebaioo, epakoloutheo(20). Instead of the
usual connexion bykaiand an occasionalde, we havemeta de tauta(12),husteron [de](14),homenoun(19),ekeinoi de(20). Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been
mentioned immediately before; thatMary Magdalenseems now to be introduced for the first time, though in fact she has
been mentioned three times in the preceding sixteen verses; that no reference
is made to an appearance of theLordinGalilee, though this was to be expected in
view of the message of verse 7.Comparativelylittle importance attached to the last
three points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious from the
context; the reference toMagdalenas thewomanout of whomChristhad cast sevendevilsis explicable here, as showing thelovingmercy of theLordto
one who before had been so wretched; and the mention of an appearance inGalileewas hardlynecessary.the
important thing being toprove,
as this passage does, thatChristwas reallyrisenfrom the dead, and that HisApostles, almost against theirwills, were forced tobelievethe fact. But, even when this
is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against theMarcanorigin of the passage is considerable.
Some explanation indeed can beofferedof nearly every point (cf.
Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Marc.", 445-47), but it is the fact that in
the shortspaceof twelve verse so many points require
explanation that constitutes the strength of the evidence. There is nothing
strange about the use, in a passage like this, of many words rare with he
author. Only in the lastcharacterisapisteoused bySt. Lukealso (Luke 24:11, 41),eterosis used only once inSt.
John'sGospel(xix, 37), andparakoloutheois used only once bySt.
Luke(i, 3). Besides, in other
passagesSt. Markuses many words that are not found in
theGospeloutside the particular
passage. In the ten verses,Mark 4:20-29, the writer has found fourteen
words (fifteen, ifphanerousthaiof xvi, 12, be notMarcan)
which occur nowhere else in theGospel.
But, as was said, it is the combination of so many peculiar features, not only
of vocabulary, but ofmatterand construction, that leaves room fordoubtas to theMarcanauthorship of the verses.

In
weighing the internal evidence, however, account must be take of the
improbability of theEvangelist'sconcluding with verse 8. Apart from
the unlikelihood of his ending with the participlegar, he could never deliberately close
his account of the "good news" (i, 1) with the note of terror
ascribed in xvi, 8, to some ofChrist'sfollowers. Nor could anEvangelist, especially adiscipleofSt.
Peter, willingly conclude hisGospelwithout
mentioning some appearance of therisenLord(Acts 1:22;10:37-41). If, then,Markconcluded
with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he
could write more. Buttraditionpoints to his living on after theGospelwas completed, since it represents him
as bringing the work with him toEgyptor as handing it over to theRomanChristianswho had asked for it. Nor is it easy to understand how, if he lived on,
he could have been so interrupted as to be effectually prevented from adding,
sooner or later, even a short conclusion. Not many minutes would have been
needed to write such a passage as xvi, 9-20, and even if it was his desire, as
Zahn withoutreasonsuggests (Introd., II, 479), to add
some considerable portions to the work, it is still inconceivable how he could
have either circulated it himself or allowed his friends to circulate it
without providing it with at least a temporary and provisional conclusion. In
every hypothesis, then, xvi, 8, seems an impossible ending, and we are forced
to conclude either that thetrueending is lost or that we have it in the disputed verses. Now, it is not
easy to see how it could have been lost. Zahnaffirmsthat it has never been established nor
made probable that even a single completesentenceof theNew
Testamenthas disappeared
altogether from the text transmitted by theChurch(Introd., II, 477). In the present case, if thetrueending were lost duringMark'slifetime, the question at once occurs:
Why did he not replace it? And it is difficult to understand how it could have
been lost after his death, for before then, unless he died within a few days
from the completion of theGospel,
it must have been copied, and it is most unlikely that the same verses could
have disappeared from several copies.

It
will be seen from this survey of the question that there is nojustificationfor the confident statement of Zahn
that "It may be regarded as one of the mostcertainof critical conclusions, that the
wordsephobounto gar, xvi, 8, are the last
words in the book which were written by the author himself" (Introd., II,
467). Whatever be the fact, it is not at allcertainthatMarkdid not write the disputed verses. It
may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some otherinspiredwriter, and were appended to theGospelin the first century or the beginning
of the second. AnArmenianmanuscript, written in A.D. 986,
ascribes them to apresbyternamedAriston, who may be
the same with thepresbyterAristion, mentioned byPapiasas a contemporary ofSt. JohninAsia.Catholicsare not bound to hold that the verses were written bySt. Mark. But they arecanonicalScripture, for theCouncil
of Trent(Sess. IV), indefiningthat all the parts of theSacredBooksare to be received assacredandcanonical,
had especially in view the disputed parts of theGospels, of which this conclusion ofMarkis
one (cf.Theiner, "Acta gen. Conc.
Trid.", I, 71 sq.). Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they areinspired, and must be received as such
by everyCatholic.

Place and date of composition

It
iscertainthat theGospelwas written atRome.St. Chrysostomindeed speaks ofEgyptas the place of composition ("Hom. I. onMatt.", 3), but he probably misunderstoodEusebius, who says thatMarkwas
sent toEgyptand preached there theGospelwhich he had written (Church HistoryII.16). Some few modern
scholars haveadoptedthe suggestion of RichardSimon("Hist.crit. du Texte du N.T.", 1689,
107) that theEvangelistmay have published both aRomanand anEgyptianedition of theGospel. But
this view is sufficiently refuted by thesilenceof theAlexandrianFathers. Other opinions, such as that
theGospelwas written inAsia
Minoror atSyrianAntioch, are not deserving of any consideration.

Thedateof
theGospelis uncertain. The external evidence is
not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much.St.
Clement of Alexandria,Origen,Eusebius,Tertullian, andSt.
Jeromesignifythat it was written beforeSt. Peter'sdeath. The subscription of many of the
later unical and cursivemanuscriptsstates that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after theAscension(A.D. 38-40). The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to A.D. 40,
and the"Chronicle" of Eusebiusto the third year ofClaudius(A.D. 43). Possibly these earlydatesmay be only adeductionfrom thetraditionthatPetercame toRomein the second year ofClaudius,
A.D. 42 (cf.Eusebius,Church HistoryII.14;Jerome, "De Vir.
Ill.", i).St. Irenæus, on
the other hand, seems to place the composition of theGospelafter the death ofPeterandPaul(meta de tentoutonexodon--Against HeresiesIII.1).Papias, too, asserting thatMarkwrote
according to hisrecollectionofPeter'sdiscourses, has been taken to imply
thatPeterwas dead. This, however, does notnecessarilyfollow from the words ofPapias, forPetermight have been absent fromRome. Besides,Clement
of Alexandria(Eusebius,Church HistoryVI.14) seems to say thatPeterwas alive and inRomeat thetimeMarkwrote,
though he gave theEvangelistno help in his work. There is left, therefore, the testimony ofSt. Irenæusagainst that of all the other earlywitnesses; and it is an interesting
fact that most present-dayRationalistandProtestantscholars prefer to followIrenæusand
accept the laterdateforMark'sGospel, though they reject almost
unanimously thesaint'stestimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in
favour of the priority ofMatthew'sGospeltoMark's. Various attempts have been
made to explain the passage inIrenæusso as to bring him into agreement with
the other earlyauthorities(see, e.g.Cornely, "Introd.",
iii, 76-78;Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38),
but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be
regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, tobelievethatIrenæuswas mistaken than that all the otherauthoritiesare inerror, and hence the external
evidence would show thatMarkwrote beforePeter'sdeath (A.D. 64 or 67).

From
internal evidence we can conclude that theGospelwas written before A.D. 70, for there
is no allusion to the destruction of theTemple of Jerusalem, such as mightnaturallybe expected in view of the prediction
in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi,
20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be fromSt. Mark'spen, theGospelcannot well have been written before
the close of the firstApostolicjourney
ofSt.
Paul(A.D. 49 or 50), for it
is seen fromActs 14:26and15:3, that only then had theconversionof theGentilesbegun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this
theApostleshad preached far and
wide among the dispersedJews, but, on the whole, it seems more
probable that the last verse of theGospel,
occurring in a work intended forEuropeanreaders, cannot have been written beforeSt.
Paul'sarrival inEurope(A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may
conclude that thedateof theGospelprobablyliessomewhere
between A.D. 50 and 67.

Destination and purpose

Tradition
represents theGospelas written primarily forRomanChristians(see above, II), and internal evidence, if it does not quiteprovethetruthof this view, is altogether in accord with it. The language and customs
of theJewsare supposed to be unknown to at least some of the readers. Hence terms
likeBoanerges(iii, 17),korban(vii, 11),ephphatha(vii, 34) are interpreted;Jewishcustoms are explained to illustrate
the narrative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of theMountofOlivesin relation to theTempleis pointed out (xiii, 3); thegenealogyofChristis omitted; and theOld
Testamentis quoted only once (i,
2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B,Aleph, A, C, D, X). Moreover,
the evidence, as far as it goes, points toRomanreaders.Pilateand his office are supposed to beknown(15:1--cf.Matthew
27:2;Luke 3:1); othercoinsare reduced to their value inRomanmoney
(xii, 42);SimonofCyreneis said to be the father ofAlexanderandRufus(xv, 21), a fact of no importance in
itself, but mentioned probably becauseRufuswas known to theRomanChristians(Romans
16:13); finally,Latinisms, or
uses of vulgarGreek, such as
must have been particularly common in a cosmopolitan city likeRome, occur more frequently
than in the otherGospels(v, 9, 15; vi, 37; xv, 39, 44; etc.).

The
SecondGospelhas no such statement of its purpose
as is found in the Third and Fourth (Luke
1:1-3;John 20:31). TheTübingencriticslong regarded it as a
"Tendency" writing, composed for the purpose ofmediatingbetween and reconciling thePetrineand Pauline parties in the earlyChurch. OtherRationalistshave seen in it an attempt to allay the disappointment ofChristiansat the delay ofChrist's Coming, and have held that its object was
to set forth theLord'searthlylifein
such a manner as to show that apart from Hisgloriousreturn He had sufficiently attested
theMessianiccharacterof His mission.
But there is no need to have recourse toRationaliststo learn the purpose of theGospel.
TheFatherswitnessthat it was written to put into
permanentformfor theRoman
Churchthe discourses ofSt. Peter, nor is therereasontodoubtthis. And theGospelitself shows clearly enough thatMarkmeant,
by the selection he made fromPeter'sdiscourses, toproveto theRomanChristians, and still more perhaps
to those who might think of becomingChristians, thatJesuswas theAlmighty
Son of God. To this end, instead of quotingprophecy,
asMatthewdoes toprovethatJesuswas theMessias, he sets forth in
graphic languageChrist'spower over allnature, as
evidenced by Hismiracles. The dominant note of the wholeGospelis sounded in the very first verse:
"The beginning of thegospelofJesus Christ,Son of God" (the words"Son
of God"are removed from the
text byWestcottand Hort, but quite improperly--cf.
Knabenb., "Comm. in Marc.", 23), and theEvangelist'smain purpose throughout seems to be toprovethetruthof this title and of thecenturion'sverdict: "Indeed thismanwas (the)son
of God" (xv, 39).

Relation to Matthew and Luke

The
threeSynopticGospelscover to a large extent the same
ground.Mark, however, has
nothing corresponding to the first twochaptersofMatthewor the first two ofLuke, very little to represent most of
the long discourses ofChristinMatthew,
and perhaps nothing quite parallel to the long section inLuke
9:51-18:14. On the other hand, he has very little that is not found in either or
both of the other twoSynoptists, the amount ofmatterthat is peculiar to the SecondGospel, if it were all put together,
amounting only to less than sixty verses. In the arrangement of the commonmatterthe threeGospelsdiffer very considerably up to the
point whereHerod Antipasis said to have heard of the fame ofJesus(Matthew
13:58;Mark 4:13;Luke 9:6). From this point onward the order
of events is practically the same in all three, except thatMatthew(xxvi, 10) seems to say thatJesuscleansed theTemplethe day of His triumphal entry intoJerusalemandcursedthe fig tree
only on the following day, whileMarkassigns both events to the following
day, and places thecursingof the fig tree before the cleansing
of theTemple; and whileMatthewseems to say that the effect of thecurseand the astonishment of thedisciplesthereat followed immediately.Marksays
that it was only on the following day thedisciplessaw that the tree was withered from
the roots (Matthew
21:12-20;Mark 11:11-21). It is often said, too, thatLukedeparts
fromMark'sarrangement in placing the disclosure
of thetraitorafter the
institution of theBlessed
Eucharist, but it, as seemscertain,
thetraitorwas referred to many times during theSupper, this difference may be more
apparent than real (Mark
14:18-24;Luke 22:19-23). And not only is there this
considerable agreement as to subject-matter and arrangement, but in many
passages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and
phrases that it is impossible tobelievethe accounts to be wholly independent.
On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and
frequently recurring divergence. "Let any passage common to the threeSynoptistsbe put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows:
first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as
many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more expressed in the same words, but
differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the
third; then several words identical; then a clause or two not only wholly
distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the
same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions.

The
question then arises, how are we to explain this very remarkable relation of
the threeGospelsto each other, and, in particular, for
our present purpose, how are we to explain the relation ofMarkof
the other two? For a full discussion of this most importantliteraryproblem seeSYNOPTICS. It can barely be
touched here, but cannot be wholly passed over insilence. At the outset may be put
aside, in the writer's opinion, the theory of the common dependence of the
threeGospelsupon oraltradition, for, except in a very
modifiedform, it is incapable by itself alone of explaining all the phenomena
to be accounted for. It seems impossible that an oraltraditioncould account for the extraordinary
similarity between, e.g.Mark 2:10-11, and its parallels.Literarydependence or connexion of some kind
must be admitted, and the questions is, what is thenatureof that dependence or connexion? DoesMarkdepend
uponMatthew, or upon bothMatthewandLuke,
or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected
through their common dependence upon earlier documents or through a combination
of some of thesecauses? In
reply, it is to be noted, in the first place, that all earlytraditionrepresentsSt. Matthew'sGospelas the first written; and this must be
understood of our presentMatthew,
forEusebius, with the work ofPapiasbefore him, had nodoubtwhatever that it was our presentMatthewwhichPapiasheld to have been written inHebrew(Aramaic). The order of theGospels,
according to theFathersand early writers who refer to the
subject, wasMatthew,Mark,Luke,John.Clement
of Alexandriais alone in signifying
thatLukewrote beforeMark(Eusebius,Church HistoryVI.14), and not a single
ancient writer held thatMarkwrote beforeMatthew.St. Augustine, assuming the priority
ofMatthew, attempted to account for therelationsof the first twoGospelsby holding that the second is a
compendium of the first (Matthæumsecutustanquam pedisequus et breviator--"De Consens. Evang.",
I, ii). But, as soon as the serious study of theSynopticProblem began, it was seen that this
view could not explain the facts, and it wasabandoned.
The dependence ofMark'sGospeluponMatthew'showever, though not after the manner
of a compendium, is still strenuously advocated. Zahn holds that the SecondGospelis dependent on the AramaicMatthewas well as uponPeter'sdiscourses for itsmatter, and, to some extent, for its
order; and that theGreekMatthewis in turn dependent uponMarkfor
its phraseology. So, too, Besler ("Einleitung in das N.T.", 1889) and
Bonaccorsi ("I tre primi Vangeli", 1904). It will be seen at once
that this view is in accordance withtraditionin regard to the priority ofMatthew, and it also explains the
similarities in the first twoGospels.
Its chief weakness seems to the present writer toliein
its inability to explain some ofMark'somissions.
It is very hard to see, for instance, why, ifSt.
Markhad the FirstGospelbefore him, he omitted all reference
to the cure of thecenturion'sservant (Matthew
8:5-13). Thismiracle, by reason of its relation to
aRomanofficer, ought to have had
very specialinterestforRomanreaders, and it is extremely difficult
to account for itsomissionbySt.
Mark, if he hadSt. Matthew'sGospelbefore him. Again,St. Matthewrelates that when, after the feeding
of the five thousand,Jesushad come to thedisciples,
walking on water, those who were in the boat "came andadoredhim, saying: Indeed Thou art [the]Son
of God" (Matthew
14:33). Now,Mark'sreport of the incident is: "And
he went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased; and they were
exceedingly amazed within themselves: for they understood not concerning the
loaves, but their heart was blinded" (Mark
6:51-52). ThusMarkmakes no reference to theadoration, nor to the strikingconfessionof thedisciplesthatJesuswas [the]Son of God. How can we account for this, if
he hadMatthew'sreport before him? Once more,Matthewrelates that, on the occasion ofPeter'sconfessionofChristnearCæsarea
Philippi,Petersaid: "Thou
art theChrist, theSon
of the living God" (Matthew
16:16). ButMark'sreport of this magnificentconfessionis merely: "Peter answering said
to him: Thou art theChrist"
(Mark
8:29). It appears impossible to account for theomissionhere of the words: "theSon of the living God", words
which make the specialgloryof thisconfession, ifMarkmade
use of the FirstGospel. It would
seem, therefore, that the view which makes the SecondGospeldependent upon the First is not
satisfactory.

The
prevailing view at the present amongProtestantscholars and not a fewCatholics, inAmericaandEnglandas well as inGermany, is thatSt. Mark'sGospelis prior toSt. Matthew's, and used in it as well
as inSt. Luke's. ThusGigotwrites: "TheGospelaccording toMarkwas
written first and utilized by the other twoSynoptics" ("The New
York Review", Sept.-Dec., 1907). So tooBacon,
Yale Divinity School: "It appears that the narrative material ofMatthewis simply that ofMarktransferred
to form a framework for the masses of discourse" . . . "We find here
positiveproofof dependence by ourMatthewon our Mark" (Introd. to the
N.T., 1905, 186-89).Allen, art.
"Matthew" in "The InternationalCriticalCommentary", speaks of the
priority of the Second to the other twoSynopticGospelsas "the one solid result ofliterarycriticism"; and Burkitt in
"The Gospel History" (1907), 37, writes: "We are bound to
conclude thatMarkcontains the whole of a document whichMatthewandLukehave independently used, and, further,
thatMarkcontains very little else beside. This
conclusion is extremely important; it is the one solid contribution made by the
scholarship of the nineteenth century towards the solution of the Synoptic
Problem". See alsoHawkins,
"Horæ Synopt." (1899), 122;Salmondin
Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", III, 261; Plummer, "Gospel of
Matthew" (1909), p. xi; Stanton, "The Gospels as Historical
Documents" (1909), 30-37; Jackson, "Cambridge Biblical Essays"
(1909), 455.

Yet,
notwithstanding the wide acceptance this theory has gained, it may bedoubtedwhether it can enable us to explain all the phenomena of the first two,Gospels;Orr, "The Resurrection of
Jesus" (1908), 61-72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., II,
601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not yet been grappled with. Itoffersindeed a ready explanation of the
similarities in language between the twoGospels,
but so doesZahn'stheory of the dependence of theGreekMatthewuponMark.
It helps also to explain the order of the twoGospels,
and to account forcertainomissions inMatthew(cf. especiallyAllen, op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv). But
it leaves many differences unexplained. Why, for instance, shouldMatthew, if he hadMark'sGospelbefore him, omit reference to the
singular fact recorded byMarkthatChristin thedesertwas with the wildbeasts(Mark
1:13)? Why should he omit (Matthew
4:17) fromMark'ssummary ofChrist'sfirst preaching, "Repent andbelievein theGospel" (Mark 1:15), the very important words
"Believe in theGospel",
which were so appropriate to the occasion? Why should he (iv, 21) omitoligonand tautologically add "two brothers" toMark 1:19, or fail (4:22) to mention "the hired
servants" with whom the sons ofZebedeeleft their father in the boat (Mark 1:20), especially since, as Zahn
remarks, the mention would have helped tosavetheirdesertionof their father from the appearance of
being unfilial. Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious fact that
though theGadarenedemoniacafter his cure
wished to follow in the company ofJesus, he was not permitted, but told to
go home and announce to his friends what great things theLordhad
done for him (Mark
5:18-19). How is it thatMatthewhas no reference to thewidow'smite andChrist'stouchingcommentthereon (Mark 12:41-44) nor to the number of the swine (Matthew 8:3-34;Mark 5:13), nor to the disagreement of thewitnesseswho appeared againstChrist? (Matthew 26:60;Mark 14:56, 59).

It
is surely strange too, if he hadMark'sGospelbefore him, that he should seem to
represent so differently thetimeof thewomen'svisit to thetomb, the situation of theangelthat appeared to them and the purpose for which they came (Matthew 28:1-6;Mark 16:1-6). Again, even when we admit thatMatthewis grouping inchaptersviii-ix, it is hard to see anysatisfactoryreasonwhy, if he hadMark'sGospelbefore him, he should so deal with theMarcanaccount ofChrist'searliest recordedmiraclesas not only to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and
second withMarkrespectively the first and third with
himself (Matthew
8:1-15;Mark 1:23-31;40-45).Allenindeed. (op. cit., p. xv-xvi) attempts
an explanation of this strangeomissionand inversion in the eighthchapterofMatthew,
but it is not convincing. For other difficultiessee Zahn, "Introd.", II,
616-617. On the whole, then, it appears premature to regard this theory of the
priority ofMarkas finally established, especially
when we bear in mind that it is opposed to all the early evidence of the
priority ofMatthew. The question is stillsub judice, and notwithstanding
the immense labour bestowed upon it, further patient inquiry is needed.

It
may possibly be that the solution of the peculiarrelationsbetweenMatthewandMarkis to be found neither in the
dependence of both upon oraltraditionnor in the dependence of either upon
the other, but in the use by one or both of previous documents. If we may
suppose, andLuke 1:1, gives ground for the supposition,
thatMatthewhad access to a document written
probably in Aramaic, embodying thePetrinetradition, he may have combined with
it one or more other documents, containing chieflyChrist'sdiscourses, to form his AramaicGospel. But the samePetrinetradition, perhaps in aGreekform, might have been known toMarkalso;
for the earlyauthoritieshardlyobligeus to hold that he made no use of pre-existing documents.Papias(apudEus.,Church HistoryIII.39) speaks of him as
writing down some things as herememberedthem, and ifClement
of Alexandria(ap.Eus.,Church HistoryVI.14) represents theRomansas thinking that he could write
everything frommemory, it does
not at all follow that he did. Let us suppose, then, thatMatthewembodied thePetrinetraditionin his AramaicGospel, and thatMarkafterwards
used it or rather aGreekformof
it somewhat different, combining with it reminiscences ofPeter'sdiscourses. If, in addition to this,
we suppose the Greek translator ofMatthewto have made use of our presentMarkfor
his phraseology, we have quite a possible means of accounting for the
similarities anddissimilaritiesof our first twoGospels, and we are free at the same
time to accept thetraditionalview in regard to the priority ofMatthew.Lukemight
then be held to have used our presentMarkor perhaps an earlierformof
thePetrinetradition, combining with it a source
or sources which it does not belong to the present article to consider.

Of
course theexistenceof early documents, such as are here
supposed, cannot be directlyproved, unless the spade should chance to
disclose them; but it is not at all improbable. It is reasonable to think that
not many years elapsed afterChrist'sdeath before attempts were made to put into writtenformsome
account of His words and works.Luketells us that many such attempts had
been made before he wrote; and it needs no effort tobelievethat thePetrineformof
theGospelhad been committed to writing before
theApostlesseparated; that it
disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in
theGospels. It is hardlynecessaryto add that the use of earlier documents by aninspiredwriter is quite intelligible.Gracedoes not dispense withnaturenor, as a rule,inspirationwith ordinary,naturalmeans. The writer of the SecondBookofMachabeesstates distinctly that his book is an
abridgment of an earlier work (2
Maccabees 2:24, 27), andSt.
Luketells us that before
undertaking to write hisGospelhe had inquired diligently into all
things from the beginning (Luke
1:1).

There
is noreason, therefore, whyCatholicsshould be timid about admitting, ifnecessary, the dependence of theinspiredevangelistsupon earlier documents, and, in view
of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this
possibility inmindin attempting to account for the
puzzlingrelationsofMarkto the other twosynoptists.

Sources

See
the articleGOSPEL OF ST. LUKEfor the decision of the Biblical
Commission (26 January, 1913).

Mark, Evangelist (RM)
Died c. 75; feast day in the East is September 23; feast of the translation of
his relics to Venice is celebrated on January 31. Among the younger figures of
the New Testament is John Mark (Acts 12:25), mentioned several times in the New
Testament. Of the four Gospels his is the most vivid and informal because it
was probably the first recorded (AD 60-70). In some ways it is the most
descriptive Gospel, yet he writes as though it had to be done quickly. Papias,
bishop of Hierapolis, Asia Minor, called him the interpreter of Peter, c. 130,
and said that he preached the gospel in Alexandria. An ancient tradition had
the Gospel written down in Rome for Gentile Christians.

He recorded the story of
Jesus as he heard it from the lips of Saint Peter. "For," according
to Papias, "he had neither heard the Lord, nor ever been his disciple, but
later had attended Peter, who composed his teachings to suit the needs of the
moment, but did not profess to make a regular collection of the Lord's sayings.
And so Mark made no mistakes; writing down the particulars just as he
remembered them."

Mark's Gospel is written in
awkward Greek, full of Semitic turns of phrases, cumbersome participles, and a
lack of transitions. Yet Mark's simple language, stripped of rhetorical flourishes,
without oratorical periods, without concern for syntax, is perhaps the clearest
language through which to see best the flesh and blood of Jesus. The miracles
of Jesus must have deeply affected Mark because his Gospel recounts many of
them. In order to demonstrate Jesus's divinity to the Romans, Mark skillfully
shows Jesus as a worker of miracles rather than Jesus fulfilling prophecies
that would be unknown to his intended readers. Mark's Gospel starkly sets out
the demands of Jesus on his followers.

Jesus had suffered, says
Mark; His followers will suffer similarly. Indeed, Jesus had explicitly warned
the disciples about this. But it is also clear that those who can endure such
sufferings will be greatly rewarded, for what Mark claims to be bringing is
'good news,' 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,' as he states in the
very first verse. Another early historian, Eusebius, reporting the words of
Saint Clement of Alexandria says that Saint Mark, a follower of Saint Peter,
was asked by Roman tradesmen to compose a permanent memorial of Saint Peter's
sermons, and so came to write, from his memory of them, the Gospel which bears
his name. Saint Ireneaus also tells us that Mark was Saint Peter's interpreter
and mouthpiece.

Saint Mark was a cousin of
Barnabas (Col. 4:10). His mother, Mary, was evidently a person of some wealth
and position in Jerusalem, for her home was a center of hospitality to which
the leaders of the early Church naturally gravitated. When Saint Peter escaped
from prison, he came "to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose
surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying," and it was a
maid of the house, called Rhoda, who answered the door.

Mark was probably a Levite,
because we know that his kinsman Barnabas was one (Acts 4:36), and perhaps a
minor minister in the synagogue. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch is
AD 44 (Acts 12:25), then to Salamis in Cyprus, and with Barnabas was on Paul's
first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but left Paul at Perga in Pamphylia and
returned alone to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). For some reason he evidently offended
Paul, who did not take him on his second missionary journey to Cilicia and Asia
Minor, which was the occasion of the disagreement and separation of Paul and
Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40).

Mark accompanied Barnabas
to Cyprus (Acts 15:39) and then, evidently back in Paul's good graces, was with
him in Rome during his first imprisonment (Col. 4:10), where he was apparently
a disciple of Peter, who affectionately called him "my son, Mark" (1
Peter 5:13). During Paul's second Roman captivity, shortly before his
martyrdom, he writes to Timothy, who was at Ephesus, to "take Mark and
bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2
Timothy 4:11).

An early uncertain
tradition, recorded by Eusebius, renders Mark the first bishop of Alexandria,
but neither Papias nor Clement of Alexandria mentions it. The tradition says
that upon his arrival in Alexandria, like Paul arriving in Damascus, Mark found
lodging with an inhabitant, in this case with a shoemaker. The shoemaker was
also to become a saint, whose feast is celebrated today-- Anianus. Tradition
continues that Mark was martyred during the reign of Emperor Trajan or the
"eighth year of Nero," and the shoemaker Anianus succeeded him as
bishop.

One Easter Sunday, the
uncertain tradition continues, April 24, 68, Mark was arrested. The long path
of Jesus, from Gethsemani up to the palace of Anna, which Mark had not had the
courage to pursue in Jerusalem, had been reserved for him, with a rope around
his neck, from Alexandria up to the little port of Bucoles.

He fell several times along
the way. Finally, after having carried his rope all day and then for a night,
and feeling it sink into his flesh, in the end he no longer desired that it be
removed. He wanted to find this collar to his measure, this light yoke--and
died strangled. In the East, John Mark is believed to be a separate person who
became bishop of Biblios and whose feast is celebrated on September 27.

Regardless of Papias's
remarks that Mark never knew our Lord, there is speculation that he would have
been acquainted with Jesus. He may have been the unnamed youth (mentioned only
in Saint Mark's Gospel 14:51-52) who appeared at the time of the Betrayal, wrapped
in a sheet, as if he had come straight from his bed, and who, when caught,
escaped into the night (this has always been curious to me). It is likely
enough that Saint Mark, as a boy, had been drawn to the scene, but it is only a
conjecture. Other Scripture scholars note that the Last Supper may have
occurred in the room reserved in Mark's mother's house for pilgrims, and that
the Garden of Gethsamane belonged to the family. It would have been common
enough for one of the family members or servants to sleep in the garden as a
protection against thieves, which would explain the boy sleeping in the open
(Attwater, Benedictines, Bentley, Delaney, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Gill, Walsh,
White).

In art, Saint Mark is an
evangelist with a book or scroll and a winged lion. At times he may be shown
(1) with palm and book (sometimes pax tibi Marce is written on his book); (2)
as a bishop with his throne decorated with lions; (3) coming to the aid of
Venetian sailors; or (4) rescuing Christian slaves from the Saracens (Roeder).
The winged lion is used as Saint Mark's emblem. This is one of the four winged
creatures of Ezekiel 1:10; 10:14 that were first applied by Jewish scholars to
the four archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel) with reference to
and later used in reference to the four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Daniel).

By the 2nd century after
Christ, Christians transferred the emblem to the four Evangelists (Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John) in written allusions. These became visual symbols in the
5th century. Traditionally, it is explained that the winged lion is chosen for
Mark because his gospel speaks of the royal dignity of Christ, and because he
begins his account of Saint John the Baptist with the "voice crying is the
desert" (Appleton).

Saint Mark is the patron of
Venice, to where his relics were reputedly brought in the 9th century from
Alexandria. Although the original church of St. Mark in Venice was destroyed in
976, the rebuilt basilica contains both the relics and a magnificent series of
mosaics on Mark's life, death, and translation. These date from the 12th-13th
centuries and form a unique record (Farmer). He is also the patron of Egypt,
glaziers, notaries, secretaries, and Spanish cattle breeders (for which there
is no obvious explanation). He is invoked by captives (Roeder, White).

St. Mark was a native of the North Africa county of Libya. He was born in the city of Cyrene in Pentapolis, The western part of Libya, west of the border of Egypt. St. Mark was born of Jewish parents three years after the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His original name was John and his surname was Mark : "And when he {peter} came to himself ....., he {Peter} came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many gathered together praying" (acts 12:11-12); and " Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark" (acts 15:37); "And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark" (acts 12:25). St. marks parents, Aristopolos his father and Mary his mother, migrated to Palestine shortly after the birth of St. Mark because of the Berber attacks on their town and property. They settled in Cana of Galilee not far form Jerusalem A few years later St. Mark's father died and Peter Simon { St. Peter}, who was married to a relative of St. Mark's father took care of St. Mark and considered him a son: "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you and so does Marcus {Mark} my son"; (1 Peter 5:13). Peter Simon saw to it that St. Mark got a good education. St. Mark studied law and the classics.

Church Traditions state that Mary, St. Mark's mother, was admirer of Jesus Christ and followed Him everywhere and that St. Mark was one of the attendants who served at the feast in Cana of Galilee at which Jesus Christ turned the waster into wine: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee ... and both Jesus and was called and his disciples, to the marriage .. when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, ... This was the first miracle Jesus did ..." (John 2:1-11)

________________________________________

Quick Facts

+ He was born in the Pentapolis or Qairawan (Now Tunisia or Libya according to other sources) approximately 15 years after our Lord was born.

+ He witnessed the preaching of our Lord in Palestine as well as his passion.

+ He is the author of the earliest Gospel to be written (it was written in Greek).

+ He was the founder of Christianity in Egypt or in Alexandria at least. He came to Alexandria approximately 48 AD. Foot Note: According to some sources, St. Peter preached in Babylon about the same time St. Mark was in Alexandria, however he focussed on the Jews of Babylon (A city near Memphis, Cairo now ).

+ He was martyred in 68 AD when pagans of Serapis (the Serapion-Abbis Greek Egyptian god ) tied him to a horse's tail and dragged him through the streets of Alexandria's district of Bokalia for two days until his body was torn to pieces.

+ The Church celebrates his martyrdom on the 8th of May each year.

+ His head is in a church named after him in Alexandria, and parts of his relics is in St. Mark's Cairo's Cathedral. The rest of his relics are in the San Marco Cathedral in Venice, Italy.

+ Of his titles are : The Evangelist, the Apostle, the Witness and the Martyr.

ST. MARK was converted to the Faith by the Prince of the Apostles, whom he afterwards accompanied to Rome, acting there as his secretary or interpreter. When St. Peter was writing his first epistle to the churches of Asia, he affectionately joins with his own salutation that of his faithful companion, whom he calls "my son Mark." The Roman people entreated St. Mark to put in writing for them the substanee of St. Peter's frequent discourses on Our Lord's life. This the Evangelist did under the eye and with the express sanction Of the apostle, and every page of his brief but graphic gospel so bore the impress of St. Peter's character, that the Fathers used to name it "Peter's Gospel." St. Mark was now sent to Egypt to found the Church of Alexandria. Here his disciples be came the wonder of the world for their piety and asceticism, so that St. Jerome speaks of St. Mark as the father of the anchorites, who at a later time thronged the Egyptian deserts. Here, too, he set up the first Christian school, the fruitful mother of many illustrious doctors and bishops. After governing his see for many years, St. Mark was one day seized by the heathen, dragged by ropes over stones, and thrown into prison. On the morrow the torture was repeated, and having been consoled by a vision of angels and the voice of Jesus, St. Mark went to his reward.

It is to St. Mark that we owe the many slight touches which often give such vivid coloring to the Gospel scenes, and help us to picture to ourselves the very gestures and looks of our blessed Lord. It is he alone who notes that in the temptation Jesus was "with the beasts;" that tie slept in the boat "on a pillow;" that He "embraced" the little. children. He alone preserves for us the commanding words "Peace, be still " by which the storm was quelled; or even the very sounds of His voice, the "Ephpheta" and "Talitha cumi," by which the dumb were made to speak and the dead to rise. So, too, the "looking round about with anger," and the "sighing deeply," long treasured in the memory of the penitent apostle, who was himself converted by his Saviour's look, are here recorded by his faithful interpreter.

Reflection.--Learn from St. Mark to keep the image of the Son of man ever before your mind, and to ponder every syllable which fell from His lips.

ST. MARK was of Jewish extraction. The style of his gospel abounding with
Hebraisms, shows that he was by birth a Jew, and that the Hebrew language was
more natural to him than the Greek. His acts say he was of Cyrenaica, and Bede
from them adds, of the race of Aaron. Papias, quoted by Eusebius,1 St. Austin,2 Theodoret, and Bede say, he was converted by the apostles after Christ’s
resurrection.3 St. Irenæus4 calls him the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and, according to
Origen and St. Jerom, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son.5 By his office of interpreter to St. Peter, some understood that St.
Mark was the author of the style of his epistles; others that he was employed
as a translator into Greek or Latin, of what the apostle had written in his own
tongue, as occasion might require it. St. Jerom and some others take him to be
the same with that John, surnamed Mark, son to the sister of St. Barnabas: but
it is generally believed that they were different persons: and that the latter
was with St. Paul in the East, at the same time that the Evangelist was at
Rome, or at Alexandria. According to Papias, and St. Clement of Alexandria, he
wrote his gospel at the request of the Romans; who, as they relate,6 desired to have that committed to writing which St. Peter had taught
them by word of mouth. Mark, to whom this request was made, did accordingly set
himself to recollect what he had by long conversation learned from St. Peter;
for it is affirmed by some, that he had never seen our Saviour in the flesh.
St. Peter rejoiced at the affection of the faithful; and having revised the
work, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies
of the faithful. Hence it might be that, as we learn from Tertullian,7 some attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself.8 Many judge, by comparing the two gospels, that St. Mark abridged that
of St. Matthew; for he relates the same things, and often uses the same words;
but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the
narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He relates two
histories not mentioned by St. Matthew, namely, that of the widow giving two
mites,9 and that of Christ’s appearing to the two disciples going to Emmaus.
St. Austin10 calls him the abridger of St. Matthew. But Ceillier and some others
think nothing clearly proves that he made use of St. Matthew’s gospel. This
evangelist is concise in his narrations, and writes with a most pleasing
simplicity and elegance. St. Chrysostom11 admires the humility of St. Peter, (we may add also of his disciple St.
Mark,) when he observes, that his evangelist makes no mention of the high
commendations which Christ gave that apostle on his making that explicit
confession of his being the Son of God; neither does he mention his walking on
the water; but gives at full length the history of St. Peter’s denying his
Master, with all its circumstances. He wrote his gospel in Italy; and, in all
appearance, before the year of Christ, 49.

St. Peter sent his disciples from Rome to found other churches. Some
moderns say St. Mark founded that of Aquileia. It is certain at least that he
was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of
Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world,) as
Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerom, and others assure us. Pope Gelasius, in
his Roman council, Palladius, and the Greeks, universally add, that he finished
his course at Alexandria, by a glorious martyrdom. St. Peter left Rome, and
returned into the East in the ninth year of Claudius, and forty-ninth of
Christ. About that time St. Mark went first into Egypt, according to the
Greeks. The Oriental Chronicle, published by Abraham Eckellensis, places his
arrival at Alexandria only in the seventh year of Nero, and sixtieth of Christ.
Both which accounts agree with the relation of his martyrdom, contained in the
ancient acts published by the Bollandists, which were made use of by Bede and
the Oriental Chronicle, and seem to have been extant in Egypt in the fourth and
fifth centuries. By them we are told that St. Mark landed at Cyrene, in
Pentapolis, a part of Lybia bordering on Egypt, and, by innumerable miracles,
brought many over to the faith, and demolished several temples of the idols. He
likewise carried the gospel into other provinces of Lybia, into Thebais, and
other parts of Egypt. This country was heretofore of all others the most
superstitious: but the benediction of God, promised to it by the prophets, was
plentifully showered down upon it during the ministry of this apostle. He
employed twelve years in preaching in these parts, before he, by a particular
call of God, entered Alexandria, where he soon assembled a very numerous
church,12 of which it is thought says Fleury, that the Jewish converts then made
up the greater part. And it is the opinion of St. Jerom and Eusebius, that
these were the Therapeutes described by Philo,13 and the first founders of the ascetic life in Egypt.14

The prodigious progress of the faith in Alexandria stirred up the
heathens against this Galilæan. The apostle therefore left the city, having
ordained St. Anianus bishop, in the eighth year of Nero, of Christ the
sixty-second, and returned to Pentapolis, where he preached two years, and then
visited his church of Alexandria, which he found increased in faith and grace,
as well as in numbers. He encouraged the faithful and again withdrew: the
Oriental Chronicle says to Rome. On his return to Alexandria, the heathens
called him a magician, on account of his miracles, and resolved upon his death.
God, however, concealed him long from them. At last, on the pagan feast of the
idol Serapis, some who were employed to discover the holy man, found him
uttering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass. Overjoyed to find him
in their power, they seized him, tied his feet with cords, and dragged him
about the streets, crying out, that the ox must be led to Bucoles, a place near
the sea, full of rocks and precipices, where probably oxen were fed. This
happened on Sunday, the 24th of April, in the year of Christ 68, of Nero the
fourteenth, about three years after the death of SS. Peter and Paul. The saint
was thus dragged the whole day, staining the stones with his blood, and leaving
the ground strewed with pieces of his flesh; all the while he ceased not to
praise and thank God for his sufferings. At night he was thrown into prison, in
which God comforted him by two visions, which Bede has also mentioned in his
true martyrology. The next day the infidels dragged him, as before, till he
happily expired on the 25th of April, on which day the Oriental and Western
churches keep his festival. The Christians gathered up the remains of his
mangled body, and buried them at Bucoles, where they afterwards usually
assembled for prayer. His body was honourably kept there, in a church built on
the spot, in 310; and towards the end of the fourth age, the holy priest
Philoromus made a pilgrimage thither from Galatia to visit this saint’s tomb,
as Palladius recounts. His body was still honoured at Alexandria, under the
Mahometans, in the eighth age, in a marble tomb.15It is said to have been conveyed by stealth to Venice, in 815.
Bernard, a French monk, who travelled over the East in 870, writes, that the
body of St. Mark was not then at Alexandria, because the Venetians had carried
it to their isles.16 It is said to be deposited in the Doge’s stately rich chapel of St.
Mark, in a secret place, that it may not be stolen, under one of the great
pillars. This saint is honoured by that republic with extraordinary devotion as
principal patron.

The great litany is sung on this day to beg that God would be pleased to
avert from us the scourges which our sins deserve. The origin of this custom is
usually ascribed to St. Gregory the Great, who, by a public supplication, or
litany with a procession of the whole city of Rome, divided into seven bands,
or companies, obtained of God the extinction of a dreadful pestilence.17 This St. Gregory of Tours learned from a deacon, who had assisted at
this ceremony at Rome.18 The station was at St. Mary Major’s, and this procession and litany
were made in the year 590. St. Gregory the Great speaks of a like procession
and litany which he made thirteen years after, on the 29th of August, in the
year 603, in which the station was at St. Sabina’s.19 Whence it is inferred that St. Gregory performed this ceremony every
year, though not on the 25th of April, on which day we find it settled, in the
close of the seventh century, long before the same was appointed for the feast
of St. Mark.20 The great litany was received in France, and commanded in the council
of Aix-la-Chapelle in 836, and in the Capitulars of Charles the Bald.21 St. Gregory the Great observed the great litany with a strict fast. On
account of the Paschal time, on the 25th of April, it is kept in several
diocesses only with abstinence; in some with a fast of the Stations, or till
None.22

Nothing is more tender and more moving than the instructions which
several councils, fathers, and holy pastors, have given on the manner of
performing public supplications and processions. The first council of Orleans
orders masters to excuse their servants from work and attendance, that all the
faithful may be assembled together to unite their prayers and sighs. A council
of Mentz23 commanded that all should assist barefoot, and covered with sackcloth:
which was for some time observed in that church. St. Charles Borromæo
endeavoured, by pathetic instructions and pastoral letters, to revive the
ancient piety of the faithful, on the great litany and the rogation days.
According to the regulations which he made, the supplications and processions
began before break of day, and continued till three or four o’clock in the
afternoon. On them he fasted himself on bread and water, and preached several
times, exhorting the people to sincere penance. A neglect to assist at the
public supplications of the church, is a grievous disorder, and perhaps one of
the principal causes of the little piety and sanctity which are left, and of the
scandals which reign amongst Christians. They cannot seek the kingdom of God as
they ought, who deprive themselves of so powerful a means of drawing down his
graces upon their souls. We must join this profession with hearts penetrated
with humility, and spend some time in prayer, pious reading, and the exercises
of compunction. What we are chiefly to ask of God on these days is the
remission of our sins, which are the only true evil, and the cause of all the
chastisements which we suffer, or have reason to fear. We must secondly beg
that God avert from us all scourges and calamities which our crimes deserve,
and that he bestow his blessing on the fruits of the earth.

Note 3. Tillemont and others, upon the authority of these fathers, say he never
was a disciple of Christ, but only of the apostles. Yet St. Epiphanius tells
us, he was one of the seventy-two disciples, and forsook Christ, after hearing
his discourse on the eucharist, John vi. but was converted by St. Peter after
the resurrection. (Hær. 51, c. 5, p. 528.) Tillemont (Note 2, sur. S. Jean
Marc. t. 2, p. 556,) maintains, that the evangelist was not John Mark, (who
seems to have been the cousin of St. Barnabas,) because the latter desired to
follow SS. Paul and Barnabas, as an attendant, in 51; whereas the Evangelist
seems to have arrived in Egypt in 49, and to have written his gospel at Rome
before that time. On the contrary, F. Combefis thinks that the Evangelist and
John Mark are the same person. And Stilting, the Bollandist, in the life of St.
John Mark, shows this to be the most probable opinion, as nothing occurs in the
sacred writings which proves them to have been different persons. See
Stilting, t. 7, Sept. ad diem 27, p. 387. [back]

Note 8. St. Epiphanius, (Hær. 51,) St.
Gregory Nazianzen, (Or. 25, and carm. 34,) St. Jerom, (Cat.) &c., affirm
the same. Baronius (ad an. 45,) and Selden think his gospel was first written
in Latin, because it was compiled for the benefit of the Romans; but the Greek
language was commonly understood among them. St. Austin, St. Jerom, and most of
the ancients, suppose the Greek certainly to be the original; indeed the style
itself shows it, and the learned are now commonly agreed in this point. An old
manuscript of this gospel is kept in St. Mark’s treasury in Venice, and is
there said to be the original copy, written by the evangelist himself. It is
written not on Egyptian papyrus, as Mabillon and Montfaucon too lightly
imagined; but on a paper made of cotton, as Scipio Maffei, a complete judge,
who narrowly examined it, assures us. (See his Istoria Diplomatica, printed at
Mantua, in 4to. in 1727.) Misson thought it written in Greek, and that he read
the word [Greek]. But Montfaucon shows that he mistook Bata in Ibat autem for
[Greek]; and that MS. is in Latin, as Ciaconi had well informed us. It was
conveyed from Aquileia to Venice in the fifteenth century. The Emperor Charles
IV. in 1355, obtained, from Aquileia, the last eight leaves, which are kept at
Prague. The twenty leaves at Venice, with the last eight leaves at Prague, make
the whole gospel of St. Mark, which belongs to the other three gospels in the
Forojulian MS. This MS. was written in the sixth century, and contains the
oldest copy of St. Jerom’s version of the gospels. See Montfaucon, Diar.
Italic. Calmet, Diss. sur l’Evang. de St. Marc, and principally Laur. a Turre’s
excellent letter to Bianchini, in this latter’s Evangel. Quadrup. t. 4,
p. 543. [back]

Note
14. This opinion, Helyot, Montfaucon,
and many others, have defended in ample dissertations; though others think
these Therapeutes were originally a rigid sect of the Essenes among the Jews.
Philo says, they were spread over all Egypt, that they lived retired from the
world, disposed of their fortunes among their relations, read holy hooks, were
much given to pious meditation, neither eat nor drank before sunset, and
practised other austerities; and that some of their women observed perpetual
virginity out of motives of religion. But whether they were the disciples of
St. Mark or not, it is however certain, that from his time there were several
Christians whom a desire of living after a more perfect manner than ordinary
induced to withdraw into the country about Alexandria, and to live retired,
praying and meditating on the holy scriptures, working with their hands, and
taking no sustenance before sunset, &c. [back]

Note 17. The Greek word litany, which signifies supplication, is mentioned by St.
Basil, (ep. 63, p. 97, t. 3,) as used in his time for a public supplication to
implore the divine mercy. The Greeks repeated the form Kyrie eleison: the
Latins retained the very words. St. Gregory the Great added Christe eleison to answer
the former. The invocation of the saints was added soon after St. Gregory’s
time, as appears from some martyrologies of that age, which falsely bear the
name of St. Jerom. See Florentin, Admonit. 8 præv. p. 39, 40. Thomassin, Hist.
des Fêtes Mob. part 2, p. 173, &c. [back]